Germany: Gericht: Homo-Hasser darf Regenbogenfahne bei CSD als Putzlappen verwenden
Die abwertende Verwendung der Regenbogenfahne ist laut Gerichten in Nordrhein-Westfalen kein “aggressives Vorgehen” gegen queere Menschen.
Namibian citizenship granted to child born via surrogacy to gay couple
25 October 2021 By Ruth Retassie Appeared in BioNews 1118
The Namibian High Court has granted citizenship to the child of a same-sex couple born via surrogacy.
The son of Namibian citizen Phillip Lühl and his Mexican husband Guillermo Delgado was born in South Africa in 2019. Namibia’s legal system does not acknowledge same-sex marriage, so although Lühl is named on the South African birth certificate, Namibian authorities had previously insisted that a DNA test was required to prove a genetic link before citizenship would be granted. In October High Court Judge Thomas Masuku ruled that the child is a Namibian citizen by descent, rejected the need for a paternity test, and ordered the ministry of home affairs and immigration to issue national documents to the child within 30 days.
‘This is a big win for same-sex couples and especially a big win for Namibian children born outside Namibia by way of surrogacy’ said the family’s lawyer, Uno Katjipuka-Sibolile.
Lühl and Delgado also have twin daughters, born earlier this year, for whom they are seeking Namibian citizenship.
‘It’s quite sad that it takes so much emotional, financial disruption to our lives in order to get a simple bureaucratic decision taken that allows us to be together as a family,’ said Lühl.
Sexual contact between men is illegal in Namibia, although the law is rarely enforced and may soon be overturned.
‘The LGBTQI community are human beings and we must not allow them being excluded from the bouquet of rights enunciated in our constitution,’ Justice Minister Yvonne Dausab told Reuters earlier this year.
Source: https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_160016
| Gay couple hail ‘big win’ in battle over children’s Namibian citizenship |
| Reuters | 25 October 2021 |
| Gay couple’s son finally granted citizenship after drawn-out battle in landmark Namibian ruling |
| Pink News | 16 October 2021 |
| In Namibia, same-sex couple fight for children’s citizenship |
| Reuters | 16 April 2021 |
| Namibia issues travel documents to gay couple’s children |
| Reuters | 18 May 2021 |
| Namibian court grants citizenship to gay couple’s son in LGBTQ+ rights ‘win’ |
| Advocate | 15 October 2021 |
| Namibian court rules against gay couple in fight to take newborn daughters home |
| Reuters | 19 April 2021 |
India dispatches: does Indian law recognize same-sex marriage, or not?
India Staff Correspondent Sambhav Sharma, a final year law student at Amity Law School, reports on the Centre’s striking contention in the Delhi High Court today that Indian law still does not recognize same-sex marriages in India. He files this for JURIST from New Delhi.
The Union Government of India on Monday submitted in the Delhi High Court that Indian laws do not recognize same-sex marriages in India. The Delhi High Court in Abhijeet Iyer Mitra v. Union of India was hearing multiple connected petitions filed for grant of an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Card to the spouse of the petitioner, neither of whom identified as heterosexual.
Karuna Nundy, Senior Lawyer representing one of the Petitioners, said that the pair got married in New York, and the statutes that applied in their instance were the Citizenship Act of 1955, the Foreign Marriage Act of 1969, and the Special Marriage Act of 1954, none of which mandates a specific gender for their application. She further submitted that the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955, under section 7A(1)(d) (the provision governing the registration of OCI cardholder) do not discriminate between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and instead uses the term ‘persons’, thus being ‘gender neutral’.
In response, Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General of India, one of the foremost legal representatives of the Central Government, commented that the terms in the enactments have specific connotations. As per the stand of the Central Government through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, ‘spouse’ mandatorily means husband and wife (heterosexual couple) and ‘marriage’ implies a union only between such heterosexual couples. To add insult to injury, Tushar Mehta submitted that marriage is only permissible between a biological man and a biological woman as per the law in India.
In order to understand the context and my evident agony, we must revisit the 2018 landmark judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the decision of the Supreme Court that effectively decriminalized homosexuality in India. By way of the decision, the apex court struck down section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), to the extent it criminalized consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex. While declaring the provision unconstitutional, the Court expressly held:
“Section 377 affects the private sphere of the lives of LGBT persons. It takes away the decisional autonomy… prohibits LGBT persons from expressing their sexual orientation and engaging in sexual conduct in private, a decision which inheres in the most intimate spaces of one’s existence.”
As an ordinary citizen who witnessed the victory of the LGBTQ+ community through this decision which gave them rights under Indian law, one assumes that same-sex couples were now legally recognized in India. While that is partially true, the Court did not expressly legalize same-sex ‘marriage’ in India, but only the sexual conduct of same-sex couples in ‘private’. This is precisely what the Central Government is now using as ammunition.
In earlier proceedings of the Delhi High Court in October 2020, the Central Government through Tushar Mehta firmly stated that decriminalization of Section 377 of the IPC does not automatically translate into the fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples. Reiterating its stance, the Solicitor General on Monday submitted that the 2018 decision in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India does not talk about same-sex marriage, but only declares that private acts of same-sex couples would no longer be punishable under the penal laws of India. Refuting the government’s submissions, Saurabh Kirpal, Senior Advocate appearing for one of the Petitioners submitted that while the decision did not expressly allow same-sex marriages, the inevitable conclusion favours such an interpretation.
My primary concern with such a conservative and narrow-minded approach of the Central Government is its lack of logic. It almost seems that the government would rather focus on ‘protecting’ the purported customs and traditions of India than provide basic matrimonial rights to its citizens. The Supreme Court at various instances has duly recognized the vitality of a person’s right to get married to a partner of their own choosing. One such case is Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018), wherein the apex court observed:
“The Constitution recognises the liberty and autonomy which inheres in each individual. This includes the ability to take decisions on aspects which define one’s personhood and identity. The choice of a partner whether within or outside marriage lies within the exclusive domain of each individual.”
A bare perusal of the court’s observation leads to an understanding that a person has the legal and exclusive right to marry a partner of their choice. Why then would the Central Government now stand in the way of the judiciary and the interests of its citizens? The answer given by the government is quite feeble. The government in the past has submitted in court that “living together as partners and having sexual relationship by same sex individuals is not comparable with the Indian family unit concept of a husband, a wife and children which necessarily presuppose a biological man as a ‘husband’, a biological woman as a ‘wife’ and the children born out of the union between the two”.
It is evident that the central government would rather violate valid matrimonial rights of individuals duly recognized by the apex court, than bite the bullet and finally allow people to practice their freedom of choice and fundamental right of privacy. The petitions have now been listed together for final hearing on November 30 before the Delhi High Court. While the central government has gone the whole nine yards to ensure that same-sex couples do not enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples, the court might just hit the nail on the head and come to the aid of those being deprived of their basic rights.
In my view, it is necessary to broaden the ambit of ‘family’ as is understood in Indian law. Gone are the days when the gender of an individual would govern their entire life, and their sex would dictate the roles they played. This would entail questioning and altering the sexist and often discriminatory gender politics of traditional heteronormative relationships, as well as calling out social and political institutions that hinder the integration of the LGBTQ+ community in the society. The complete recognition of the rights of the LGBTQ+ community requires active steps by the government that formally recognize matrimonial relationships as an exclusive domain of the couple, at par with heterosexual marital relationships.
The post India dispatches: does Indian law recognize same-sex marriage, or not? appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.
New guidance for trans athletes in UK sport slammed as ‘extremely harmful’: ‘Sport is for everyone’
The new guidance released on Thursday (30 September) follows an 18-month consultation from the Sports Councils Equality Group (SCEG), a body comprised of Sport England, Sport Scotland, Sport Northern Ireland, Sport Wales and UK Sport.
More: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/09/30/uk-sport-trans-guidance-athletes/
2021 Human Rights Week Scientific Colloquium: Discrimination and Inequalities – Geneva, 25-26 November
While discriminations and inequalities have always been a subject of international concern, the trend in recent years indicates an increase rather than a decrease of the phenomenon. This tendency has been further aggravated by the COVID 19 pandemic, despite the fact that the prohibition of discrimination is well-entrenched in international human rights law and appears high on the agenda of the international community.
The two-day Scientific Colloquium of the 2021 Human Rights Week will explore the different facets of discrimination and inequalities and will discuss their human rights impact in our contemporary world. Experts, academics, and practitioners as well as young scholars will discuss four main issues:
The Human Rights Week is one of the key events in Geneva that addresses contemporary challenges and issues in the field of human rights. The 2021 edition will discuss – via conferences, debates, film screenings, exhibitions, artistic performances, and the scientific colloquium – the question of discrimination and inequalities.
During one week, experts, practitioners, artists, students, academics, diplomats, and civil society representatives will exchange around this issue, debate, identify solutions and raise awareness about ongoing discriminatory practices and inequalities.
This major event is organized by the University of Geneva, in partnership with the Geneva Academy, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, the Republic and Canton of Geneva, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Geneva International Film Festival and Forum on Human Rights and Les Créatives.
The Scientific Colloquium will take place both in Geneva (Villa Moynier, 120B Rue de Lausanne) and online via Zoom.
Register here to follow the Human Rights Conversation online. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
Register here to follow the event at the Geneva Academy headquarters Villa Moynier.
Due to sanitary measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic, access to the Scientific Colloquium will be limited to those who have a valid Swiss COVID Certificate; an EU Digital COVID Certificate; or a paper or digital document proving that s.he has been tested negative following a rapid antigen test or a PCR one conducted within 48 hours and 72 hours respectively prior to the start of the event.
Programme
DAY 1: THURSDAY 25 NOVEMBER 2021
9:00 – 9:30 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION
9:30 – 10:15 KEYNOTE
10:15 – 10:30 BREAK
10:30 – 11:40 SESSION 1: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN
11:40 – 12:40 SESSION 2: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LGBTIQ COMMUNITIES
11:40 – 13:50 LUNCH
13:50 – 15:00 SESSION 3: DISCRIMINATIONS IN RELATION TO SPECIFIC RIGHTS
| 15:00 – 16:10 | SESSION 4: DISCRIMINATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC |
| 16:10 – 16:55 | KEYNOTE SPEECH – INEQUALITIES IN ACCESSING THE COVID-19 VACCINE: A MORAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS FAILURE |
3
DAY 2: FRIDAY 26 NOVEMBER 2021
| 9:00 – 10:10 | SESSION 5: DISCRIMINATION IN ARMED CONFLICTS, COUNTER TERRORISM AND OTHER EMERGENCIES |
| 10:10 – 10:55 | KEYNOTE SPEECH – DISCRIMINATIONS IN COUNTERING TERRORISM AND VIOLENT EXTREMISM |
10:55 – 11:15 BREAK
12:15 – 12:30 CLOSING
| From 12:30 | VISIT OF A PHOTO EXHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION AT THE BAINS DES PÂQUIS |
END OF THE SCIENTIFIC COLLOQUIUM
A Kuwaiti court has sentenced a transgender woman to prison for “imitating the opposite sex” online, Human Rights Watch said today. Such laws violate the rights to free expression, privacy, and nondiscrimination under Kuwait’s constitution and international law. The authorities should immediately release her and quash the conviction.
The court on October 3, 2021, sentenced Maha al-Mutairi, 40, to two years in prison and a fine of 1,000 Kuwaiti dinars (USD 3,315) for “misusing phone communication” by “imitating the opposite sex” online under article 70 of the telecommunication law and article 198 of the penal code. She has been arrested multiple times since 2019 for her transgender identity, but the current conviction is apparently based on her online activities in 2021.
“The Kuwaiti government’s monitoring, repeated arrests, and imprisonment of Maha al-Mutairi for her trans identity is a blatant violation of her basic rights,” said Rasha Younes, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Kuwaiti authorities should immediately reverse her conviction and allow her to live safely as a woman.”
Al-Mutairi told Human Rights Watch in a phone interview on October 8 that after receiving news of her conviction she went into hiding. But the police arrested her on October 11 at the hotel where she was staying. She is being held in Kuwait Central Prison, a men’s prison, in a solitary cell designated for transgender detainees.
Ibtissam al-Enezi, al-Mutairi’s lawyer, told Human Rights Watch that the court used al-Mutairi’s social media videos as evidence to convict her on grounds that she was wearing makeup, speaking about her transgender identity, allegedly making “sexual advances,” and criticizing the Kuwaiti government. Her appeals hearing is scheduled for October 31.
Al-Enezi said the prison officials have not mistreated al-Mutairi and that police had allowed her to call her lawyer. Al-Mutairi told Human Rights Watch that this was the sixth time she has been arrested due to her transgender identity and that before her current arrest she had been barred from traveling outside the country because of the cases against her.
On June 5, 2020, the authorities summoned al-Mutairi for “imitating women” – the fourth time she had faced the charge that year – after she posted a video online saying that the police had raped and beaten her while she was detained in a male prison for seven months in 2019 for “imitating the opposite sex.” The authorities released al-Mutairi on bail on June 8, 2020, without charge. She told Human Rights Watch that the police abused her during those three days in detention, including by spitting on her, verbally abusing her, and sexually assaulting her by taking turns touching her breasts.
A 2007 Kuwaiti law amended article 198 of the penal code, criminalizing “imitating the opposite sex.” Under article 70 of the telecommunication law, a person who “misuses” telephone communication may be imprisoned for up to a year and fined up to 2,000 Kuwaiti dinars (USD 7,091).
In 2012, Human Rights Watch documented the negative effects of article 198 on the lives of transgender women, who reported multiple forms of abuse at the hands of the police while in detention. They described degrading and humiliating treatment such as being forced to strip and parade around police stations, being forced to dance for officers, sexual humiliation, verbal taunts and intimidation, solitary confinement, and emotional and physical abuse that could amount to torture.
The Kuwaiti National Assembly should repeal the 2007 amendment to article 198, and Kuwaiti authorities should investigate all allegations of police brutality including sexual violence, hold officers accountable for misconduct, and protect transgender people from violence, Human Rights Watch said. Kuwaiti authorities should also amend article 70 of the telecommunication law to remove imprisonment as a punishment for speech violations that amount to defamation as defined by law.
Article 36 of Kuwait’s constitution guarantees freedom of opinion and expression. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Kuwait has ratified, also guarantees the right to freedom of expression and requires that any restrictions “must be constructed with care,” ensure that they do not stifle freedom of expression in practice and should not provide for “excessively punitive measures and penalties.”
The United Nations Human Rights Committee, which monitors compliance with the ICCPR, has made clear that the covenant prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in upholding any of the rights protected by the treaty. As a state party to the ICCPR and the Arab Charter on Human Rights, Kuwait is required to protect the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, including for transgender people.
“Al-Mutairi’s story is one of many horrific accounts by transgender Kuwaitis whose only crime is expressing themselves publicly,” Younes said. “Kuwait should immediately release al-Mutairi, investigate her allegations of sexual violence in detention, and end its criminalization and harassment of transgender people.”
Source: https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/10/14/kuwait-quash-conviction-against-transgender-woman
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Human Rights Watch (HRW) called on Kuwait to end its suppression of the LGBTQ community in a report published on Thursday, following the conviction and imprisonment of Maha-al-Mutairi, a transgender woman.
She was charged with allegedly violating telecommunication laws by “imitating the opposite sex” online. These claims were brought under Article 70 of the Communication and Information technology law and Article 198 of the Penal code.
On October 3, the court sentenced her to two years imprisonment and a fine of 1,000 Kuwait dinars. She was arrested on October 11 and is currently detained at a men’s prison in a solitary confinement cell that is designated for transgender people.
Al-Mutairi reported to HRW that this was her sixth arrest that targeted her gender identity. In 2020 alone she was charged four times with “imitating women.”
While no abuses in custody have thus been reported as her lawyer says, al-Mutairi told HRW about previous instances of violence and abuse she has faced while incarcerated in a men’s facility.
HRW has condemned the acts, citing their contravention of the freedom of expression, privacy, and non-discrimination, all of which are guaranteed under the Kuwait constitution and international law. Rasha Younes, an LGBTQ researcher stated:
The Kuwaiti government’s monitoring, repeated arrests, and imprisonment of Maha al-Mutairi for her trans identity is a blatant violation of her basic rights…Kuwaiti authorities should immediately reverse her conviction and allow her to live safely as a woman.
The post HRW calls on Kuwait to stop punitive acts towards transgender Kuwaitis appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.
UK: Court of Appeal upholds the decision of the High Court that fostering agency’s policy which specifically requires carers not to engage in homosexual behaviour, “is as clear an instance of direct discrimination…as can be imagined”
| National court decision, R (Cornerstone (North East) Adoption and Fostering Service Ltd)) v The Office for Standards In Education, Children’s Services and Skills [2021] EWCA Civ 1390; 24 September 2021 |
Interesting publication: [Völkerrechtsblog] Watch Your Facebook Comment Section! – Holding Politicians Criminal Liable for Third Parties’ Hate Speech – No Violation of Freedom of Expression under the ECHR
| 15.10.2021 | by Frederic Kupsch |
| Recently, in Sanchez v France, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) swung the door towards social media users’ liability wide open, allowing not only politicians, as in the case at hand, but also other social media users to be held criminally liable for third parties’ hate speech comments. Although Sanchez v France is only a Chamber judgment, its impact on the use of social media as a platform to express and share opinions could be enormous. As such, a rectification – or at least clarification – by the Grand Chamber (GC) is desirable.[click here to see full article] |
Same-sex marriage isn’t a bar to the Dutch throne, Prime Minister says
Read: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/13/europe/royal-same-sex-marriage-netherlands-intl-scli/index.html
Uganda Recognises Its First Transgender Citizen
International and Comparative SOGIESC Law - Professor Andreas R Ziegler 